HS2 could cost up to £102.7bn and trains won't start until at least 2036

MichaelDono · 23 May 2026

Will HS2 use FRMCS or GSM-R given the new planned entry into service? I would have assumed GSM-R will be far too obsolete to install new by this point although that would seem to conflict with the planned ETCS system version of v2.1 (i.e. akin to baseline 3.6.0) which I think doesn’t fully support anything but GSM-R?

Perhaps there’s an expectation of a fully FRMCS compatible version “backdated” to a system version which is otherwise seen as mature?

RailUK Forums

The Planner · 24 May 2026

MichaelDono said:
Will HS2 use FRMCS or GSM-R given the new planned entry into service? I would have assumed GSM-R will be far too obsolete to install new by this point although that would seem to conflict with the planned ETCS system version of v2.1 (i.e. akin to baseline 3.6.0) which I think doesn’t fully support anything but GSM-R?

Perhaps there’s an expectation of a fully FRMCS compatible version “backdated” to a system version which is otherwise seen as mature?

I expect interoperability will play a part, why have something different if nowhere else on the WCML does?

Nicholas Lewis · 24 May 2026

3RDGEN said:
HS2 spend of £24Billion was approved under the spending review last year, approx £6Billion per year, as such there is no more money to do extra works until 2029. If you work on continuing at that spend rate beyond 2029 then you see where 2036ish comes from, it's money and resources which HS2 is taking from everywhere else.

For sure budget is being artificially constrained but given the reported progress on civils works its hard to comprehend that they need to spend another 10B to finish the civils and even if its that much that would still leave a few billion for railways systems. The other fact is all these contracts have been let, many for several years now, so HS2 is paying for those project teams. Yes they slow down spend but then they will suffer contractual consequences from delayed start of works and prolongation of works now along with inflationary impacts. Be interesting to know how much extra that has added to the overall cost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2026 ==

Nicholas Lewis said:
For sure budget is being artificially constrained but given the reported progress on civils works its hard to comprehend that they need to spend another 10B to finish the civils and even if its that much that would still leave a few billion for railways systems. The other fact is all these contracts have been let, many for several years now, so HS2 is paying for those project teams. Yes they slow down spend but then they will suffer contractual consequences from delayed start of works and prolongation of works now along with inflationary impacts. Be interesting to know how much extra that has added to the overall cost.

In another example of what delaying this project is costing is that HS2 are now letting a £1B contract to maintain the assets that have already been constructed !!

https://www.constructionenquirer.co...terim-assets-safeguarding-works-job-on-radar/

HS2 has launched early market engagement on a £1bn programme of maintenance and safeguarding contracts to look after completed sections of the railway before systems installation work begins.

Project reset forces need to maintain and protect existing main works assets ahead of rail systems work starting

The proposed Interim Maintenance Contracts are expected to be worth £1bn over 10 years from December 2027 through to the end of 2037.

The move reflects changes emerging from the Government’s HS2 reset programme and will create a dedicated capability to manage infrastructure handed over by the main works civils contractors before the High-Speed Rail Systems teams mobilise.

Core duties will cover land management, environmental and landscape maintenance, temporary facilities management and civil engineering infrastructure upkeep.

yorksrob · 6 Jun 2026

I've read a concerning interview in Modern Railways June 2026 with Chris Gibb, who has been let go from the DfT for criticising the proposed train lengths. To quote from the interview (I won't quote too much as I don't want to steal MR's thunder), Mr Gibb states:

"You can have 43×10 coach trains, or 54×8 coach trains, or anything between 43 and 54. Whichever way you cut it, it's about a third less capacity than today. 684 vehicles today will be replaced by 432 vehicles".

If this is the case, it will be a disaster - the whole point of HS2 was supposed to be to increase capacity, not reduce it.

I guess the question is how can HST in it's current stub can be altered to actually increase capacity and how can the Government/DfT be persuaded (shamed into) making sure that when HS2 is completed, the WCML see's the large capacity increase that is the project's raison d'etre.

Sorcerer · 6 Jun 2026

yorksrob said:
I guess the question is how can HST in it's current stub can be altered to actually increase capacity and how can the Government/DfT be persuaded (shamed into) making sure that when HS2 is completed, the WCML see's the large capacity increase that is the project's raison d'etre.

Either change the order so that the replacement units can be 250-300m long (275 minimum for Manchester) and abandon any hope of 400m long trains before 2050, or commit to completing the entire project so the current order can help increase capacity in the long-term while also abandoning any hope of 400m long trains before 2050. For full WCML capacity relief, the route needs to at least go as far as Crewe or you will still have major bottlenecks.

yorksrob · 6 Jun 2026

Sorcerer said:
Either change the order so that the replacement units can be 250-300m long (275 minimum for Manchester) and abandon any hope of 400m long trains before 2050, or commit to completing the entire project so the current order can help increase capacity in the long-term while also abandoning any hope of 400m long trains before 2050. For full WCML capacity relief, the route needs to at least go as far as Crewe or you will still have major bottlenecks.

Indeed.

I'd be in favour of extending the line further North as a conventional TGV type route.

Could they build some 400m long and others shorter ?

GRALISTAIR · 6 Jun 2026

Sorcerer said:
For full WCML capacity relief, the route needs to at least go as far as Crewe or you will still have major bottlenecks.

I most definitely agree.

Nicholas Lewis · 6 Jun 2026

Sorcerer said:
Either change the order so that the replacement units can be 250-300m long (275 minimum for Manchester) and abandon any hope of 400m long trains before 2050, or commit to completing the entire project so the current order can help increase capacity in the long-term while also abandoning any hope of 400m long trains before 2050. For full WCML capacity relief, the route needs to at least go as far as Crewe or you will still have major bottlenecks.

The entire order needs to re thought as a small captive HS2 fleet + Pendolino replacement. Yes it will a variation and cost buts whats a few more million now to get the right solution to serve this side of the UK.

yorksrob · 6 Jun 2026

If they get it wrong (as they seem to be heading) it will be a lot worse. But how many politicians and civil servants will still be in place by then !

To be fair to Dr Beeching, he appeared on TV to defend his policies in the 1980's. Will the current crop do the same.

JonathanH · 6 Jun 2026

The whole thing is a bit ridiculous. The Pendolinos appear to remain reliable trains, and although they are a little claustrophobic inside do a good job in transporting passengers quickly between destinations. They certainly don't appear to be life expired. Is the HS2 rolling stock order being pushed back as far in time as it can be?

class26 · 6 Jun 2026

yorksrob said:
I've read a concerning interview in Modern Railways June 2026 with Chris Gibb, who has been let go from the DfT for criticising the proposed train lengths. To quote from the interview (I won't quote too much as I don't want to steal MR's thunder), Mr Gibb states:

"You can have 43×10 coach trains, or 54×8 coach trains, or anything between 43 and 54. Whichever way you cut it, it's about a third less capacity than today. 684 vehicles today will be replaced by 432 vehicles".

If this is the case, it will be a disaster - the whole point of HS2 was supposed to be to increase capacity, not reduce it.

I guess the question is how can HST in it's current stub can be altered to actually increase capacity and how can the Government/DfT be persuaded (shamed into) making sure that when HS2 is completed, the WCML see's the large capacity increase that is the project's raison d'etre.

But if comparing todays seat numbers by the numbers the new trains will offer we need to remember some existing services will remain on the WCML to serve such destinations as Coventry etc etc so it isn`t such a simple calculation if I have understood it correctly

yorksrob · 6 Jun 2026

class26 said:
But if comparing todays seat numbers by the numbers the new trains will offer we need to remember some existing services will remain on the WCML to serve such destinations as Coventry etc etc so it isn`t such a simple calculation if I have understood it correctly

The way I've read Chris Gibb's article is that there won't be additional services remaining on the WCML.

There will be fewer services overall.

class26 · 7 Jun 2026

There will be as places such as Coventry, Rugby, Milton keynes will still require fast services

Nottingham59 · 7 Jun 2026

Sorcerer said:
Either change the order so that the replacement units can be 250-300m long (275 minimum for Manchester) and abandon any hope of 400m long trains before 2050, or commit to completing the entire project so the current order can help increase capacity in the long-term while also abandoning any hope of 400m long trains before 2050.

Just build 400m platforms in Manchester on the site of the already-designed HS2 station, and construct a viaduct to connect those platforms to the lines to Stockport. It's quire possible to do that without compromising any future tunnel from Piccadilly out to the Airport.

Then build 400m platforms at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle as originally planned.

For full WCML capacity relief, the route needs to at least go as far as Crewe or you will still have major bottlenecks.

Continuing to Hixon would relieve almost all the capacity constraint at Colwich.

The Planner · 7 Jun 2026

Nottingham59 said:
Just build 400m platforms in Manchester on the site of the already-designed HS2 station, and construct a viaduct to connect those platforms to the lines to Stockport. It's quire possible to do that without compromising any future tunnel from Piccadilly out to the Airport.

Then build 400m platforms at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle as originally planned.

Continuing to Hixon would relieve almost all the capacity constraint at Colwich.

Platforms A and B are planned there now at Picc.

Nottingham59 · 7 Jun 2026

The Planner said:
Platforms A and B are planned there now at Picc.

Do you know where will these be located? There's space on the existing deck for long platforms Zero and Minus One, where the good sidings used to be. Are they any plans published? How will they accommodate traffic arriving from Guide Bridge and Marple?

The Planner · 8 Jun 2026

Nottingham59 said:
Do you know where will these be located? There's space on the existing deck for long platforms Zero and Minus One, where the good sidings used to be. Are they any plans published? How will they accommodate traffic arriving from Guide Bridge and Marple?

On the deck next to P1. They will just join the Eastern lines I expect.

HS2 could cost up to £102.7bn and trains won't start until at least 2036

MichaelDono

Member

RailUK Forums

The Planner

Veteran Member

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member

yorksrob

Veteran Member

Sorcerer

Established Member

yorksrob

Veteran Member

GRALISTAIR

Established Member

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member

yorksrob

Veteran Member

JonathanH

Veteran Member

class26

Member

yorksrob

Veteran Member

class26

Member

Nottingham59

Established Member

The Planner

Veteran Member

Nottingham59

Established Member

The Planner

Veteran Member